Thoughts from Paris on culture, life, politics and the world.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Book discussion: A History of God
Some of us have agreed to discuss Karen Armstrong's "A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam." Here's a link to the book.
Hello, friends. I was sent this book last week as an antidote by a Bosnian friend of mine, Anita. A week earlier, I had subjected her to my usual rant about the childishness of anthropomorphic conceptions of God as well as the human proclivity for rule-making and worship. When I started to expound on my reactions to the Qu'ran (which I'd just begun reading), she suggested I get some historical context. The book in the mail was her prescription. I've just finished chapter 4, "Trinity". So far, I'm hugely pleased with it. I'm comfortable with her major premise: viz., humans create their own conceptions & images of god, within an ever-changing historical context. Conversely, god (whatever it is) doesn't reveal itself willfully to man. Our notions of god arise from our own needs, imagination and insights. (I trust you all will correct me, if you think I mistake the author.) On p. 48 the author suggests an advantage to anthropomorphism: "... this imaginative portrayal of God in human terms has inspired a social concern that has not been present in Hinduism. All three of the God-related religions have shared the egalitarian and socialist ethic of Amos and Isaiah." I find the various Old Testament versions of god essayed in chapt. 1 "In the Beginning..." to be especially interesting and even entertaining. E.g., I feel for man who hosted, then wrestled with a guest, not letting him leave in the morning until he admitted his divine nature and name. I've had analogous experiences, though usually with women. Enough about me. How's it going for you all?
I just stopped reading Mailer's "The Castle in the Forest" for one reason primarily: the narrator, a high-ranking demon working for Satan on the iffy project of creating Hitler, persistently associates evil with certain sexual practices and body parts. I just got tired of it. So I turned back to Armstrong's chapter, "The God of the Mystics". There to my relief on pp. 221-2, I found that Greek Christian mystics practiced forms of meditative worship that respected the unity of mind and body, and the omnipresence of what they experienced as God. "They saw prayer as a psychosomatic activity, whereas Westerners like Augustine and Gregory thought that prayer should liberate the soul from the body." (p. 222) Among the worst things about my growing up Catholic in the 1950s, was the indoctrination in a) mind-body dualism and b) the rough division of the body into clean bits and dirty bits (or acts). It made it really hard to feel good about sex, or one's lovers or oneself, e.g. Sexual liberation in the '60s and 70's was largely about freeing ourselves from the disabling notion that sex was dirty. One of the practical attractions of Indian philosophy may have been the transcendence of such notions (despite the actual degradation of Dalits, of course).
On an loosely related point, NPR this evening (9/17/07)interviewed an Hebraisist (sp?) who's publishing new translations of the Psalms. He explained his rejection of the word "soul". According to him, the Hebrew word usually translated that way means "breath" or, sometimes "neck". The examples he read seem compelling testimony in favor of his rendering. He also claimed that the early Jews lacked a notion of individual afterlife. The use of "soul" in later translations was, in his view, an imposition of subsequent theological changes. Naturally, given my atheism, I'm much more comfortable with the tangible expectation of life going on here in our familiar biosphere than in some alleged under/overworld. More generally, I just like the unity of psycho-physical representations of life. I'm comfortable with the changeable continuity of my parents in me and my siblings, as with the echoes of my late brothers in their progeny, family and friends. And although I'm admittedly making a huge leap, it feels like welcome news to me that some early mystics and poets might have agreed with me -- even in small part.
I've gotten almost to the end of the chapter titled "Unity: The God of Islam," and I have found it to be a rewarding read.
It would not be unfair to compare it with Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy," another book that dared (and credibly managed) to take on a vast subject.
It also brings to mind "The Milky Way," by the great director Luis Buñuel, in that it shows that the way Christianity developed was not necessarily the way that it COULD have developed. Nowhere is this clearer than in the story of how the doctrine of the Holy Trinity came about.
The doctrine of the Trinity is one of Christianity's strangest bits. Even leaving the Holy Ghost aside, just the idea of having God and a Son, seems polytheistic. Mohamed's view of Jesus as an honest prophet seems both generous and credible. However, there is a much more problematic pagan element at the core of Christianity: blood sacrifice. It's one thing to give your life in group or self defense. It's quite another to atone for the alleged guilt of all mankind in the mind of the Almighty. By contrast, it seems at least somewhat rational for Muslims to sacrifice their lives battling those humans whom they believe to be threatening their people and ways. And, of course, their religious rituals (prayers and prostration for the most part, I believe) & symbols are pristine compared with the Christian Mass & the cross.
4 comments:
Hello, friends.
I was sent this book last week as an antidote by a Bosnian friend of mine, Anita. A week earlier, I had subjected her to my usual rant about the childishness of anthropomorphic conceptions of God as well as the human proclivity for rule-making and worship. When I started to expound on my reactions to the Qu'ran (which I'd just begun reading), she suggested I get some historical context. The book in the mail was her prescription.
I've just finished chapter 4, "Trinity". So far, I'm hugely pleased with it. I'm comfortable with her major premise: viz., humans create their own conceptions & images of god, within an ever-changing historical context. Conversely, god (whatever it is) doesn't reveal itself willfully to man. Our notions of god arise from our own needs, imagination and insights. (I trust you all will correct me, if you think I mistake the author.)
On p. 48 the author suggests an advantage to anthropomorphism: "... this imaginative portrayal of God in human terms has inspired a social concern that has not been present in Hinduism. All three of the God-related religions have shared the egalitarian and socialist ethic of Amos and Isaiah."
I find the various Old Testament versions of god essayed in chapt. 1 "In the Beginning..." to be especially interesting and even entertaining. E.g., I feel for man who hosted, then wrestled with a guest, not letting him leave in the morning until he admitted his divine nature and name. I've had analogous experiences, though usually with women.
Enough about me. How's it going for you all?
I just stopped reading Mailer's "The Castle in the Forest" for one reason primarily: the narrator, a high-ranking demon working for Satan on the iffy project of creating Hitler, persistently associates evil with certain sexual practices and body parts. I just got tired of it. So I turned back to Armstrong's chapter, "The God of the Mystics".
There to my relief on pp. 221-2, I found that Greek Christian mystics practiced forms of meditative worship that respected the unity of mind and body, and the omnipresence of what they experienced as God. "They saw prayer as a psychosomatic activity, whereas Westerners like Augustine and Gregory thought that prayer should liberate the soul from the body." (p. 222)
Among the worst things about my growing up Catholic in the 1950s, was the indoctrination in a) mind-body dualism and b) the rough division of the body into clean bits and dirty bits (or acts).
It made it really hard to feel good about sex, or one's lovers or oneself, e.g. Sexual liberation in the '60s and 70's was largely about freeing ourselves from the disabling notion that sex was dirty. One of the practical attractions of Indian philosophy may have been the transcendence of such notions (despite the actual degradation of Dalits, of course).
On an loosely related point, NPR this evening (9/17/07)interviewed an Hebraisist (sp?) who's publishing new translations of the Psalms. He explained his rejection of the word "soul". According to him, the Hebrew word usually translated that way means "breath" or, sometimes "neck". The examples he read seem compelling testimony in favor of his rendering. He also claimed that the early Jews lacked a notion of individual afterlife. The use of "soul" in later translations was, in his view, an imposition of subsequent theological changes.
Naturally, given my atheism, I'm much more comfortable with the tangible expectation of life going on here in our familiar biosphere than in some alleged under/overworld. More generally, I just like the unity of psycho-physical representations of life. I'm comfortable with the changeable continuity of my parents in me and my siblings, as with the echoes of my late brothers in their progeny, family and friends.
And although I'm admittedly making a huge leap, it feels like welcome news to me that some early mystics and poets might have agreed with me -- even in small part.
I've gotten almost to the end of the chapter titled "Unity: The God of Islam," and I have found it to be a rewarding read.
It would not be unfair to compare it with Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy," another book that dared (and credibly managed) to take on a vast subject.
It also brings to mind "The Milky Way," by the great director Luis Buñuel, in that it shows that the way Christianity developed was not necessarily the way that it COULD have developed. Nowhere is this clearer than in the story of how the doctrine of the Holy Trinity came about.
The doctrine of the Trinity is one of Christianity's strangest bits. Even leaving the Holy Ghost aside, just the idea of having God and a Son, seems polytheistic. Mohamed's view of Jesus as an honest prophet seems both generous and credible.
However, there is a much more problematic pagan element at the core of Christianity: blood sacrifice. It's one thing to give your life in group or self defense. It's quite another to atone for the alleged guilt of all mankind in the mind of the Almighty.
By contrast, it seems at least somewhat rational for Muslims to sacrifice their lives battling those humans whom they believe to be threatening their people and ways. And, of course, their religious rituals (prayers and prostration for the most part, I believe) & symbols are pristine compared with the Christian Mass & the cross.
Post a Comment